More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
No. Just no.

The scientific studies in the 70s said warming. Time Magazine ran a scare ad on Ice Ages that had almost nothing to do with science.

That's exactly NOTHING like 80 or 90 or 97% of the world's climate scientists beleving that we are causing climate change.

Good grief.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Now I'm just a boy from the bush and don't understand this but how do you explain that for the last 17 years the Earth has been cooling, that polar bears are not extinct, Pacific islands haven't been inundated, the Antarctic ice cap is the biggest it has been for years and some glaciers are increasing?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Now I'm just a boy from the bush and don't understand this but how do you explain that for the last 17 years the Earth has been cooling, that polar bears are not extinct, Pacific islands haven't been inundated, the Antarctic ice cap is the biggest it has been for years and some glaciers are increasing?
I've brought up the 17-19 year halt in 'global warming' and the 'ice cap' thing a couple of times. IF someone addresses your question, what you'll get for an answer is the std "warmer" CYA explaination: "It's only a snapshot in time and therefore doesn't reflect the clear upward trend in blah, blah, blah, OR the fact that this glacier over HERE blah, blah, blah..."

IOW, no matter what one may point to as evidence the CC/GW view may be 'all wet', he'll be told said evidence is bogus and irrelevant no matter what the evidence may be or who/what its source.
 

Brian Stewart
Well, apart from the polar bears Pete, none of that is actually true, and even for the bears the area of suitable habitat is shrinking markedly. The Earth HAS continued to warm over the past 17 years, albeit the oceans at a higher rate than the atmosphere; Kiribati and Tuvalu are having real problems with rising sea levels; and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking at an increasingly alarming rate. Yes, the sea ice around Antarctica might be increasing, but there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which are the decrease in salinity of the surface water around Antarctica as the ice sheets/glaciers melt (fresh water floats and freezes at 2 degrees C higher than salt water), and changes in wind pattern as the atmosphere warms. All of this is published in the scientific literature if you care to look.

I will be long gone before the real effects kick in, but our local council are currently facing some very hard decisions regarding what to do about our lowest lying suburbs. Over the past few years the sea has encroached on the sand dunes protecting them, where in the past the dunes and beaches accreted. Some argue that it is all an entirely natural cycle that we just have to live with, or that we should simply wait and see, after all, sea level locally has only risen a few centimetres. However, if the WAIS does collapse in the next 100 years, as some researchers have predicted, we have a huge problem on our hands. Sea level will rise 3 - 3.5 m and that will be very difficult to ignore. Can we do anything about it? As I've said before, maybe not, but shouldn't we at least try.

Sorry - climbing off soap box now.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I've brought up the 17-19 year halt in 'global warming' and the 'ice cap' thing a couple of times. IF someone addresses your question, what you'll get for an answer is the std "warmer" CYA explaination: "It's only a snapshot in time and therefore doesn't reflect the clear upward trend in blah, blah, blah, OR the fact that this glacier over HERE blah, blah, blah..."

IOW, no matter what one may point to as evidence the CC/GW view may be 'all wet', he'll be told said evidence is bogus and irrelevant no matter what the evidence may be or who/what its source.
Well, apart from the polar bears Pete, none of that is actually true, and even for the bears the area of suitable habitat is shrinking markedly. The Earth HAS continued to warm over the past 17 years, albeit the oceans at a higher rate than the atmosphere; Kiribati and Tuvalu are having real problems with rising sea levels; and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking at an increasingly alarming rate. Yes, the sea ice around Antarctica might be increasing, but there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which are the decrease in salinity of the surface water around Antarctica as the ice sheets/glaciers melt (fresh water floats and freezes at 2 degrees C higher than salt water), and changes in wind pattern as the atmosphere warms. All of this is published in the scientific literature if you care to look.

I will be long gone before the real effects kick in, but our local council are currently facing some very hard decisions regarding what to do about our lowest lying suburbs. Over the past few years the sea has encroached on the sand dunes protecting them, where in the past the dunes and beaches accreted. Some argue that it is all an entirely natural cycle that we just have to live with, or that we should simply wait and see, after all, sea level locally has only risen a few centimetres. However, if the WAIS does collapse in the next 100 years, as some researchers have predicted, we have a huge problem on our hands. Sea level will rise 3 - 3.5 m and that will be very difficult to ignore. Can we do anything about it? As I've said before, maybe not, but shouldn't we at least try.

^^^ As predicted... ;) :D
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
85 pages of countless, mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change. Mother Nature, Science of Nature is based on reality of happenstance. Man is like an ant on an elephant touting his ability to f*uck the unknowing beast in the arse.
I admit I am in this BS. thread just to troll (New Zealand you cant catch me) and read some of the most wasted time ever.
I would prefer politics to pollution. But you want us to talk about the weather.

BTW another eruption by another volcano, so who makes more pollution, nature or man? Truth be told by looking at the sediment in the soil. Nature.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
85 pages of countless, mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change. Mother Nature, Science of Nature is based on reality of happenstance. Man is like an ant on an elephant touting his ability to f*uck the unknowing beast in the arse.
I admit I am in this BS. thread just to troll (New Zealand you cant catch me) and read some of the most wasted time ever.
I would prefer politics to pollution. But you want us to talk about the weather.

BTW another eruption by another volcano, so who makes more pollution, nature or man? Truth be told by looking at the sediment in the soil. Nature.
'As proper a perspective as I've read here to this point!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Oh...regarding the volcano...what about the trainload of FOREST/BRUSH/GRASS fires currently throwing all manner of crap into the air 'round the planet?
 
Last edited:

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
85 pages of countless, mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change. Mother Nature, Science of Nature is based on reality of happenstance. Man is like an ant on an elephant touting his ability to f*uck the unknowing beast in the arse.
I admit I am in this BS. thread just to troll (New Zealand you cant catch me) and read some of the most wasted time ever.
I would prefer politics to pollution. But you want us to talk about the weather.

BTW another eruption by another volcano, so who makes more pollution, nature or man? Truth be told by looking at the sediment in the soil. Nature.
Perhaps that was true when there were only 2 billion humans on the planet, but not any more. The arrogance of thinking humans cannot impact the planet's ability to adjust or absorb our excrement is wishful thinking at best. It is a closed system. We can't simply open the windows and let fresh air come in to replace the stale air (water, land, etc) we breath out. The planet's systems cannot compensate for an unrelenting or unlimited assault, in the extremely compressed timeline of modern man.

As noted earlier, they'll be patting me in the face with a shovel when/if this plays out as is currently anticipated, but my kids, and their kids will be dealing with the short-sightedness of our current inaction, and will our excuse of "well, we just weren't absolutely positive, or didn't really believe our best science back then. Cautionary actions were too inconvenient for our pocketbooks back then".
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Perhaps that was true when there were only 2 billion humans on the planet, but not any more. The arrogance of thinking humans cannot impact the planet's ability to adjust or absorb our excrement is wishful thinking at best. It is a closed system. We can't simply open the windows and let fresh air come in to replace the stale air (water, land, etc) we breath out. The planet's systems cannot compensate for an unrelenting or unlimited assault, in the extremely compressed timeline of modern man.

As noted earlier, they'll be patting me in the face with a shovel when/if this plays out as is currently anticipated, but my kids, and their kids will be dealing with the short-sightedness of our current inaction, and will our excuse of "well, we just weren't absolutely positive, or didn't really believe our best science back then. Cautionary actions were too inconvenient for our pocketbooks back then".
Last time I checked, carbon is heavier than air and carbon dioxide is the food for plants...photosythesis, yall went to school, right? Also this here ball has been around for 5 billion years and you think we are going to f' it up? Guess WHAT! you can't destroy oxygen, to do so is called "annihilation" or for you small minds nuclear recombination. Yes Nuclear. as in Fission and Fusion stuff. If what you are thinking now is end of civilization, so the plants win, and they'll make as much Oxygen and you and your kids will be dead. Nature 1, D*ckhead Humans 0. Then you'll have to wait another million years for cockroaches to evolve or G-d to drop another Adam and Eve go through this circle jerk again. Sounds like the Matrix doesn't it? I'd rather have fun with politics. Keith, what shoes are the candidates wearing today?
 

Attachments

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Last time I checked, carbon is heavier than air and carbon dioxide is the food for plants...photosythesis...
EGG-zackly. And as I've mentioned once or twice before, GREENHOUSE operators often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow bigger faster. 'Wanna get rid of excess CO2? Plant lots more trees/shrubs/etc.


Keith, what shoes are the candidates wearing today?
Attached Thumbnails


Hey! Where'd you GET those???! Marie Osmond was wearing a pair just like that during her and Donny's show at the end of April! God willing, 'will be seeing her backstage again next month - and I now intend to ask her if she's missing that particular pair! If so, I'm rattin' ya out! :D
 
I remember hearing someone say that "if you repeat a lie long enough eventually it becomes the truth". That's what I think global warming is. A money conceived lie. Gore is living proof of that, $1.2 million in 2001 to $300 million today, not a bad gig.
 

Brian Stewart
I'm out. One thing we agree on Marc - "mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change" - and that can be applied to whichever camp one wishes.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Where in Hades did anybody say O2 would be removed/depleted/destroyed? Fission/Fusion? Now I am confused.

EGG-zackly. And as I've mentioned once or twice before, GREENHOUSE operators often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow bigger faster. 'Wanna get rid of excess CO2? Plant lots more trees/shrubs/etc.
:D
If I didn't know you better Larry, I'd say that post qualified for "tree hugger" status. Don't worry, I won't tell.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
If I didn't know you better Larry, I'd say that post qualified for "tree hugger" status. Don't worry, I won't tell.
'Twould be faaaaaaar more accurate to deduce from my stmt that I'm convinced there's no NEED for all of the govt's/EPA's horse crap fines, penalties, rules and regulations when dealing with/ridding ourselves OF whatever 'excess' CO2 some CLAIM is in the atmosphere and CLAIM is the cause of the supposed GW/CC. That 'issue' can easily be disposed of by simply planting a buncha 'greenery' and allowing Mommy Nature to do her thing. 'Wouldn't cost us a danged DIME relative to the govt's heavy-handed 'solution'.

All govt is interested in is MONEY, income redistribution, POWER and CONTROL.

It couldn't effectively and efficiently manage/direct a one car parade w/o screwing it up beyond all recognition...
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Heeeeeeeeere we go AGAIN. "Scientists" are now saying we'll be entering a "Mini Ice Age" in 15 years!

Scientists predict 'mini ice age' will hit in 15 years - AOL.com&

So, NOW what are all the hand-wringing C.C./G.W.ers gunna do? More important - what are they gunna CHARGE US so they can do it?

Furthermore, how can ANY size/length "Ice Age" occur in the middle of a supposed time of ongoing global warming (solar cyclesornosolarcycles)??? And, why can't solar cycles [or the LACK of them] also cause CC/GW???

Oh, but, I'm S-U-R-E the GW/CC crowd will have some far fetched, cobbed together 'scientific' mumbo jumbo 'explaination' that will 'splain it all away for us. Not to worry...
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Now Larry, you must understand that the boys have to come up with something to keep their research grants going and seeing the Global warming thing is buggered because the Earth is not cooperating, a mini ice age sound pretty good.
 
Top